In a decision dated June 10, 2024, the Hon. Lisa S. Headley denied plaintiff’s motion to amend the pleadings to include our clients, The Helena Associates LLC and The Durst Organization (“Helena and Durst”), as direct defendants. Plaintiff tripped and fell on an allegedly defective speed bump in the parking garage of 601 West 57th Street. The parking garage was leased and maintained by defendant MPT57, LLC. The plaintiff sought leave to amend her complaint to name third-party defendants Helena and Durst (landlord) as direct defendants after the expiration of the applicable statute of limitations. Plaintiff argued that the new claims of negligence against Helena and Durst “relate back” to the original complaint and that Helena and Durst were “united in interest” with defendant MTP57. Plaintiff also argued there would be no prejudice to Helena and Durst because depositions have not yet been conducted, and Helena and Durst have since been impleaded by MTP57 as third-party defendants for contribution and indemnification. In opposition, third-party defendants Helena and Durst argued that the motion was time-barred by the statute of limitations, and they would be highly prejudiced by the untimely filing. Furthermore, they argued that the “relation back” doctrine does not apply because their interests are not united with defendant MTP57. The Court denied plaintiff’s motion to add third-party defendants Helena and Durst as direct defendants, finding “no semblance of an excuse” for plaintiff’s extensive delay, and finding that such amendment would be prejudicial to the third-party defendants. The statute of limitations had expired on June 26, 2023, and plaintiff was on notice regarding the additional defendants, Helena and Durst, by the lease agreement provided during discovery in 2022.
Lorraine Donnelly v. MTP57 LLC, et al., Index No. 161188/21 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Co., June 10, 2024)
